'She Went With Him Voluntarily' : Supreme Court Acquits Man Accused Of Kidnapping Girl Aged Between 16-18 Yrs For Marriage

The Supreme Court recently acquitted a man accused of kidnapping a minor girl, ruling that the girl had willingly left with him and was living with him as his wife. The Court found that the essential elements of "taking" or "enticing" a minor away from the lawful guardian were not met, leading to the acquittal.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and K Vinod Chandran heard the case where the prosecution alleged that the Appellant along with his father and other relatives kidnapped the prosecutrix/minor girl from a village in February 1994. After search and investigation, the prosecutrix was found to reside with the Appellant in Dehradun.

Against this backdrop, the FIR was registered against the Appellant for the alleged offences committed under Sections 363, 366 and 376 (rape) of the IPC. The trial court convicted the Appellant. In his appeal, the High Court acquitted him of the offence under Section 376 IPC but convicted him under Sections 363/366 IPC and sentenced to two years imprisonment.

Against the High Court's decision, the Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.

At the outset, the Judgment authored by Justice Gavai noted the inconsistencies between the prosecutrix's testimony. While she initially claimed she was kidnapped, her cross-examination revealed she went with the appellant willingly, traveled with him, and even admitted to signing marriage documents in Dehradun. She further admitted that she did not make any effort to raise any alarm when she was travelling in the bus.

"A perusal of testimony of the prosecutrix itself would reveal that she had gone on her own accord with the appellant herein. Therefore, the defence of the appellant herein that he had married the prosecutrix and not only that but also that the marriage was certified before the competent authority at Dehradun and thereafter they were living as husband and wife at Dehradun is a plausible defence."

The Court also noted that there were conflicting evidence regarding the age of the prosecutrix and hence chose to give the benefit of doubt to the accused.

Examining the essential ingredients of kidnapping and abduction, the Court stressed the importance of "taking" or "enticing" a minor out of the keeping of a lawful guardian.

Reliance was placed on the case of S. Vardarajan v. State of Madras 1964 SCC OnLine SC 36, which dealt with similar facts. In that case, the Court emphasized that if a woman (close to majority) willingly leaves with a man, it does not constitute "taking" her out of the lawful guardianship.

Applying the aforesaid case law, the Court observed:

“From the evidence of the prosecutrix itself, it will be clear that she had voluntarily gone along with the appellant herein, traveled to various places and also resided as husband and wife at Dehradun.”

“In that view of the matter, we find that the learned Single Judge of the High Court was not justified in upholding the conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC.”, the Court held.

"It is thus clear that the prosecutrix, who according to the learned Single Judge of the High Court, was between 16 to 18 years of age was very much in the age of understanding as to what was right and wrong for her," the Court observed.

Accordingly, the Appeal was allowed.

Case Title: TILKU ALIAS TILAK SINGH VERSUS THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 224

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) : Ms. Anagha S. Desai, AOR Mr. Satyajit A. Desai, Adv. Mr. Sachin Patil, Adv. Mr. Preetraj R. Dhok, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Gautam, Adv. Mr. Abhinav K. Mutyalwar, Adv. Mr. Sachin Singh, Adv. Mr. Ananya Thapliyal, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Ms. Anubha Dhulia, Adv.